• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cryptids of the deep

Venom

Philosopher
V
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
6,684
Location
United States
One problem I have with so called deep-sea cryptids is the propensity for folks to push the monster deeper and deeper all the way into the trenches. I mean fair enough we have discovered only a small fraction of the total ocean floor but some monsters, say,
C. megalodon would have been pelagic fish judging from their inferred diet of large mammals and sea turtles.

A modern model we could consider is the sperm whale, though every 2 hours it needs to come up for air and whaling expeditions have uncovered thousands of them. We nearly hunted blue whales to extinction.

Then again rare goblin sharks and the megamouth were discovered fairly recently.

But I just see an argument from ignorance with a pinch of goalpost move from that line of reasoning. Oftentimes it's "I heard about stories of this huge monster shark maybe the size of the blue whale". It's kinda uncomfortable territory. On one hand we really don't know all there is to know in the sea. But we are also familiar with some biological constraints on large animals that may not allow them to live deep near the ocean floor, the cryptozoologist's favorite hiding place.

On top of all of that we ought to consider the fossil record and whether that shows any pattern or trend in abundance and other stuff.

Personally I don't believe in sea monsters like that. I think it's just a bunch of smoke. 6 mile deep ocean or not.
 
I don't know, no one has figured out what the Bloop was yet.
 
The "mystery" of the Bloop was solved long ago and only kept alive by Woo Slingers. It was a cracking ice shelf. Case closed.
 
If there are large unknown species to be found, they will be found in the ocean.

Even in the area between the trenches and non-compression dives, they are finding species at a rate of 10/hour

The rate of new-species discovery in the twilight zone can top ten per hour, but scientists are typically afforded a scant 30 minutes in this light-starved region before beginning a multi-hour period of decompression on the way back to the surface.
Click to expand...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150608102942.htm
 
IIIClovisIII said:
On top of all of that we ought to consider the fossil record and whether that shows any pattern or trend in abundance and other stuff.
Click to expand...
Normally I'd be all-in on this type of thinking (as they say in Alabama), but there's a flaw here: We don't have much deep ocean sediment to work with. Most of the deep-ocean sediment from the past 540 million years has been subducted via plate tectonics, and most of the rest is in the oceans and has not been subject to paleontological investigation. So while we haven't explored much of the modern ocean floor, we haven't even STARTED looking at the ancient deep ocean floors yet. In this case, the fossil record really won't help much, much as it pains me to admit that.

Drewbot said:
If there are large unknown species to be found, they will be found in the ocean.
Click to expand...
Agreed. We KNOW there are at least a few (giant a collasal squids) that we don't know much about, and most of what we do know about them is from dead specimens washed up on shores or in whale stomachs. However, pressure and food availability would play a critical role here. Can a large thing survive the deep ocean? And could it obtain food? Island effects may cause some species to get larger (they do in many reptile species on land, for example), but I'd assume there are limits, and the deep ocean isn't exactly known for high volumes of food.
 
Dinwar said:
Normally I'd be all-in on this type of thinking (as they say in Alabama), but there's a flaw here: We don't have much deep ocean sediment to work with. Most of the deep-ocean sediment from the past 540 million years has been subducted via plate tectonics, and most of the rest is in the oceans and has not been subject to paleontological investigation. So while we haven't explored much of the modern ocean floor, we haven't even STARTED looking at the ancient deep ocean floors yet. In this case, the fossil record really won't help much, much as it pains me to admit that.
Click to expand...

Would dead sea monsters just drop into the ocean bottom like that without a trace. I mean Giant and Collosal squid have washed up on beaches if I'm not mistaken, or at least were spotted at the surface a number of times. They're finding megalodon teeth on beaches and inlets.
I just feel like people are using the vast ocean as a cover for believing in their extravagant or otherwise unlikely to exist monsters. Oh yeah, climate change. I doubt a prehistoric sea reptile or fish could just go from pelagic zone to crawling along the sea bed because it got too warm upstairs.
 
IIIClovisIII said:
Would dead sea monsters just drop into the ocean bottom like that without a trace.
Click to expand...
There is a really good chance, yes, particularly in the Mesozoic. We have records of benthic deep-sea fauna that are extremely similar to those that eat whale carcasses. In modern times, these critters even eat bone, meaning that absent fast burial there is likely to literally be nothing lelft of the organism after these animals are through with it.

It is, however, an open question as to how many of the deep-sea critters we have in the fossil record (the big ones) are due to being washed up on shore. Not many, I would say, given that they are all (to my knowledge) air-breathers.

I doubt a prehistoric sea reptile or fish could just go from pelagic zone to crawling along the sea bed because it got too warm upstairs.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's not going to happen. If they did move to cooler water, they wouldn't radically change lifestyle--not quickly, anyway. And no plesiosaaur/mosasaur/ichtheosaur/whatever is going to become benthic, as they all need air to breath. Imagine a benthic deep-sea crocodile; it'd drown.
 
Let me relate what my brother saw on the Nimitz when he was in the navy. When he was on duty in the tower he saw what looked like giant sea serpents swimming in the ocean on occasion. One day as he was standing there he pointed it out to his commanding officer and asked if he had seen them too. The officer said he had and also stated that they looked the same way snakes look when you see them swimming.
 
Jodie said:
Let me relate what my brother saw on the Nimitz when he was in the navy. When he was on duty in the tower he saw what looked like giant sea serpents swimming in the ocean on occasion. One day as he was standing there he pointed it out to his commanding officer and asked if he had seen them too. The officer said he had and also stated that they looked the same way snakes look when you see them swimming.
Click to expand...

Sounds like it could be oarfish

They swim in a more anguilliform eel like motion in contrast with marine mammals.
 
Could be a lot of things. That's the problem. We're expected to identify a marine organism based on a third-hand account from someone who's no expert on marine biology; hardly an effective methodology, I'd say.
 
I didn't ask for an explanation I was simply stating an observation. If it's unidentified, it's a cryptid, and it happened to be in the ocean.
 
Jodie said:
I didn't ask for an explanation I was simply stating an observation. If it's unidentified, it's a cryptid, and it happened to be in the ocean.
Click to expand...

If we were to take a tribesman from the jungle and show him a dead shark and he couldn't identify it, does it make it a cryptid?
 
IIIClovisIII said:
If we were to take a tribesman from the jungle and show him a dead shark and he couldn't identify it, does it make it a cryptid?
Click to expand...

Not by any honest definition. "Cryptid" has a generally accepted use, and this is not it. Using "cryptid" to mean "anything anyone sees that they can't identify" is an attempt to expand the category of "cryptid" to include numerous legitimate sightings, thereby proving that things like Bigfoot and Nessy are legitimate.
 
Sure, it might seem implausible that large sharks etc could be out there to be discovered, but on the flip side it was only in 1992 that the Vu Quang Ox was described, and that's a large Bovid living in Vietnam, which was mapped and known far better in 1990 than the oceans are now.
 
Damien Evans said:
Sure, it might seem implausible that large sharks etc could be out there to be discovered, but on the flip side it was only in 1992 that the Vu Quang Ox was described, and that's a large Bovid living in Vietnam, which was mapped and known far better in 1990 than the oceans are now.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but giant sharks are cool, giant cows aren't.:cool:

Is there some variation on "credo consolans" (I believe because it is comforting) to something closer to I believe because it is fun? "Credo ludicrum"?

Is it a coincidence that the most famous cryptids are big, "sexy" dangerous creatures straight out of mythology, legend and folklore (wild men, dragons and giant-sized versions of known animals)? How many self-described cryptozoologists spend their time searching for some rumored new species of chipmunk, frog or snail? Were they high-fiving each other when the megamouth shark was discovered and/or were they secretly disappointed that it was a megamouth and not a megalodon? Do they find it at all sobering that new species of animals are usually found by actual zoologists and never by "weekend warrior" knuckleheads who are so busy looking for wookies that they don't notice the undiscovered species of mouse that they trampled over during one of their half-witted "expeditions"?

I was a devout believer in Nessie when I was a ten years old. As an adult though, I suspect the most fascinating creatures inhabiting Loch Ness are nematodes; creatures that my ten year old self would've found dull. Are cryptozoologists merely adults still fixated on what fascinated them as children (i.e. monsters straight out of Sci-Fi and horror movies) but have rationalized that fascination through a feeble veneer of science that they call "Cryptozoology"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom